Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy of Opioid Switching in Cancer Patients

Conversion ratios: Why is it so challenging to construct opioid conversion tables?

Standardizing opioid management is challenging due to the absence of a ceiling dose, the unknown ideal therapeutic plasma level, and the lack of an clear relationship between dose and therapeutic response. Opioid rotation or conversion, which is switching from one opioid, route of administration, or both, to another, to improve therapeutic response and reduce toxicities, occurs in 20-40 percent of patients treated with opioids. Opioid conversion is often needed when there are adverse effects, toxicities, or inability to tolerate a certain opioid formulation. A majority of patients benefit from opioid conversion, leading to improved analgesia and less adverse effects. There are different published ways of converting opioids in the literature. This review of 20 years of literature is centered on opioid conversions and aims to discuss the complexity of converting opioids. We discuss study designs, outcomes and measures, pain phenotypes, patient characteristics, comparisons of equivalent doses between opioids, reconciling conversion ratios between opioids, routes, directional differences, half-lives and metabolites, interindividual variability, and comparison to package insert information. Palliative care specialists have not yet come to a consensus on the ideal opioid equianalgesic table; however, we discuss a recently updated table, based on retrospective evidence, that may serve as a gold standard for practical use in the palliative care population. More robust, well-designed studies are needed to validate and guide future opioid conversion data.

Switching to Intravenous Methadone in Advanced Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

CONTEXT

Information about opioid switching to intravenous methadone is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of opioid switching to intravenous methadone (IV-ME) in patients admitted to an acute supportive/palliative care unit (ASPCU). The secondary outcome was to assess the conversion ratio from IV-ME to oral methadone at time of hospital discharge.

METHODS

We retrieved from the pharmacy registry the list of patients who were prescribed IV-ME during their ASPCU admission for a period of 47 months. Poor analgesia with previous opioids and/or adverse effects were the main indications for opioid switching. IV-ME was titrated until acceptable analgesia was achieved. The effective dose was multiplied by three to establish the intravenous daily dose, given as a continuous infusion. Doses were then changed according to the clinical needs. Once the patient was stabilized, IV-ME dose was converted to oral methadone, by using an initial ratio of 1:1.2. Further dose changes were made according to clinical needs until stabilization, before patients' discharge. Information about patients' characteristics, pain scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire, previous opioids and their doses, expressed as oral morphine equivalents (OME), were recorded. The effective bolus of IV-ME, initial daily infusion rate, and oral methadone doses were assessed, and conversion ratios calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were taken into consideration for the study. The mean effective bolus of IV-ME titrated for achieving acceptable analgesia was 9 mg (range 5-15 mg). The mean daily continuous infusion rate of IV-ME was 27.6 mg/day (SD 21). The mean daily dose of oral methadone at time of discharge was 46.8 mg/day (SD 43). Discharge occurred within a median of seven days (range 6-9) after admission. Previous opioid (OME)/IV-ME, oral-IV-ME, and previous opioid (OME)/oral methadone were 6.25, 1.7, and 3.7, respectively.

CONCLUSION

IV-ME dose titration followed by intravenous infusion allowed a rapid pain control in few minutes in patients with severe pain intensity, not responsive to previous opioids. Conversion to oral route was successful and facilitated home discharge. Further studies should be performed to confirm these preliminary results.

Maddalena Opioid Switching Score in patients with cancer pain

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of opioid switching (OS) for cancer pain has not been properly assessed. The aim of this study was to assess an integrated score (Maddalena Opioid Switching Score) as a simple and repeatable tool to evaluate the outcomes of OS, facilitating the interpretation and comparison of studies, and information exchange among researchers. The integrated score took into account pain intensity, intensity of opioid-related symptoms, and cognitive function by using an author's formula. Physical and psychological symptoms were evaluated by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Patient Global Impression (PGI) by the minimal clinically important difference. One hundred six patients were analyzed. Ninety-five patients were switched successfully, and 11 patients underwent a further OS and/or an alternative procedure. The Maddalena Opioid Switching Score significantly decreased after OS and was highly correlated to PGI of improvement ( P < 0.0005). In patients with unsuccessful OS, no significant changes in the Maddalena Opioid Switching Score and PGI were observed. A significant reduction in Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale items intensity was observed after OS. The Maddalena Opioid Switching Score resulted to be a sensitive instrument for measuring the clinical improvement produced by OS.

Morphine or oxycodone for cancer-related pain? A randomized, open-label, controlled trial

CONTEXT

There is wide interindividual variation in response to morphine for cancer-related pain; 30% of patients do not have a good therapeutic outcome. Alternative opioids such as oxycodone are increasingly being used, and opioid switching has become common clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical response to oral morphine vs. oral oxycodone when used as first-line or second-line (after switching) treatment in patients with cancer-related pain.

METHODS

In this prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (ISRCTN65155201) with a selected crossover phase, patients with cancer-related pain were randomized to receive either oral morphine or oxycodone as first-line treatment. Dose was individually titrated until the patient reported adequate pain control. Patients who did not respond to the first-line opioid (either because of inadequate analgesia or unacceptable adverse effects) were switched to the alternative opioid.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were recruited. On intention-to-treat analysis (n = 198, morphine 98, oxycodone 100), there was no significant difference between the numbers of patients responding to morphine (61/98 = 62%) or oxycodone (67/100 = 67%) when used as a first-line opioid. Similarly, there was no significant difference in subsequent response when patients were switched to either morphine (8/12 = 67%) or oxycodone (11/21 = 52%). Per-protocol analysis demonstrated a 95% response rate when both opioids were available. There was no difference in adverse reaction scores between morphine and oxycodone either in first-line responders or nonresponders.

CONCLUSION

In this population, there was no difference between analgesic response or adverse reactions to oral morphine and oxycodone when used as a first- or second-line opioid. These data provide evidence to support opioid switching to improve outcomes.

Opioids, sensory systems and chronic pain

Opioids are the oldest and most potent drugs for the treatment of severe pain. Their clinical application is undisputed in acute pain (e.g. associated with trauma or surgery) but their long-term use in chronic pain has met increasing scrutiny. Therefore, this article will review sensory mechanisms related to opioid analgesia and side effects with a special emphasis on chronic pain. Central and peripheral sites of analgesic actions and side effects, as well as conventional and novel opioid compounds will be discussed. Since pain is a complex bio-psycho-social phenomenon, non-pharmacological considerations important for the understanding of opioid analgesic efficacy are also included. Finally, examples of challenging clinical situations such as the perioperative management of patients receiving long-term opioid treatment are illustrated.

Opioid switching in patients with advanced cancer followed at home. A retrospective analysis

CONTEXT

Opioid switching has been found to improve opioid responsiveness in different conditions. However, data on opioid switching performed at home are almost nonexistent, despite the fact that most patients are followed at home.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this retrospective survey was to determine frequency, indications, usefulness, and safety of opioid switching when treating advanced cancer-related pain in patients followed at home.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data from patients with advanced cancer followed at home by three home care teams for a period of two years was performed. Patients who had their opioids switched were selected. Reasons for switching opioid doses and routes of administration and outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Two hundred one (17%) of 1141 patients receiving "strong" opioids were switched. The mean Karnofsky Performance Status score was 35.6, and the median survival was 30 days. The most frequent reason to switch was for convenience, and the most frequent switch was to parenteral morphine. In most patients, a better analgesic response was observed. Patients who were switched to parenteral morphine had a shorter survival in comparison with other opioid sequences (P<0.0005). After switching, opioid doses were increased by 23% and 41%, after a week and at time of death, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Opioid switching was useful for most patients in the home environment, at least in less complex circumstances, when done by experienced home care teams. Prospective studies are needed to provide information about the decision to admit to hospital for this purpose and the predictive factors that may relatively contraindicate transportation to a facility in severely ill patients.

Opioid genetics: the key to personalized pain control?

There are now several strong opioids available to choose from for the relief of moderate to severe pain. On a population level, there is no difference in terms of analgesic efficacy or adverse reactions between these drugs; however, on an individual level there is marked variation in response to a given opioid. The genetic influences to this variation are complex, and although current research has shown some promising results, these have not been replicated across larger studies and as such the ultimate aim of personalized prescribing remains elusive. If personalized prescribing could be achieved this would have a major impact at an individual level to facilitate safe, effective and rapid symptom control. This review presents some of the recent positive advances in opioid pharmacogenetic studies, focusing on associations between candidate genes and the three main elements of opioid response: analgesic, upper gastrointestinal and central adverse reactions.

The effect of age on opioid switching to methadone: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to assess from the existing literature the effect of age on the outcome of opioid switching to methadone, and the possible influence on conversions ratios.

DISCUSSION

Older patients represent a challenge for physicians, as a further factor may play a role in dosing methadone and possibly on successful switching. Although existing data are not conclusive because this aspect did not receive particular attention in most studies, at the present time age has not been found to be independently associated with the dose ratio. Further prospective studies in a large sample of patients, subgrouped for classes of age, opioid doses, and reasons to switch, should be designed to provide more information.

Is morphine still the best reference opioid?

SUMMARY Cancer and noncancer pain can usually be managed according to the WHO analgesic ladder and, in many countries, morphine remains the first-line opioid of choice for chronic severe pain. There have been many advances in the use of opioids for moderate-to-severe pain control in recent years. Consequently, the position of morphine as the gold standard became gradually more questioned, mostly because of serious adverse effects and the availability of different opioids and new formulations. The place of morphine as the first-line option is based on reasons of familiarity, availability or cost rather than medical advantages. In recent years, a number of systematic reviews failed to demonstrate superiority of morphine over other opioids in terms of efficacy or tolerability. Moreover, some strong opioids have shown improved tolerability or convenience. Currently, morphine might still be considered as a reference drug for equivalent dosing, but not for strategic healthcare decisions, as it has not demonstrated clinical or pharmacological superiority over other opioids. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to sustain the role of morphine as the gold standard in the treatment of chronic severe pain.

How to switch from morphine or oxycodone to methadone in cancer patients? a randomised clinical phase II trial

AIM

Opioid switching is a treatment strategy in cancer patients with unacceptable pain and/or adverse effects (AEs). We investigated whether patients switched to methadone by the stop and go (SAG) strategy have lower pain intensity (PI) than the patients switched over three days (3DS), and whether the SAG strategy is as safe as the 3DS strategy.

METHODS

In this prospective, open, parallel-group, multicentre study, 42 cancer patients on morphine or oxycodone were randomised to the SAG or 3DS switching-strategy to methadone. The methadone dose was calculated using a dose-dependent ratio. PI, AEs and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded daily for 14 days. Primary outcome was average PI day 3. Secondary outcomes were PI now and AEs day 3 and 14 and number of SAEs.

RESULTS

Twenty one patients were randomised to each group, 16 (SAG) and 19 (3DS) patients received methadone. The mean preswitch morphine doses were 900 mg/day in SAG and 1330 mg/day in 3DS. No differences between groups were found in mean average PI day 3 (mean difference 0.5 (CI -1.2-2.2); SAG 4.1 (CI 2.3-5.9) and 3DS 3.6 (CI 2.9-4.3) or in PI now. The SAG group had more dropouts and three SAEs (two deaths and one severe sedation). No SAEs were observed in the 3DS group.

CONCLUSION

The SAG patients reported a trend of more pain, had significantly more dropouts and three SAEs, which indicate that the SAG strategy should not replace the 3DS when switching from high doses of morphine or oxycodone to methadone.

European Palliative Care Research Collaborative pain guidelines: opioid switching to improve analgesia or reduce side effects. A systematic review

According to a Cochrane review on opioid switching, sound evidence on the practice of substituting one strong opioid with another to improve pain control and reduce adverse effects was lacking in 2004. A systematic search strategy was developed to include studies after 2004, with adult cancer patients switching between strong opioids and reporting estimates of effect on pain and adverse effects. The search retrieved 288 publications (71 duplicates); 187 abstracts and 19 full papers were excluded. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria; none were randomized controlled trials/meta-analyses. Studies comprised 280 patients (group size 10-32). A variety of opioids and switching strategies were studied. Pain intensity was significantly reduced in the majority of studies. Serious adverse effects were improved. Due to serious design limitations, the level of evidence was low (D). Randomized trials, with standardization of cohort classification, use of outcomes and analysis are warranted to establish the practice of opioid switching.

Morphine-induced hallucinations - resolution with switching to oxycodone: a case report and review of the literature

Palliation of pain with morphine in cancer patients can be complicated by adverse effects. Tolerance to these effects such as nausea and drowsiness usually occurs within a few days allowing continuation of morphine therapy. However, some patients may develop intolerable adverse effects even after several months on morphine when the dose is increased. A case of morphine-induced hallucinations in a cancer patient who had been on a subcutaneous infusion of diamorphine for several months is discussed. A switch to oxycodone resolved his hallucinations and gave him a new lease of life. The theories behind and evidence for opioid-switching is discussed along with strategies for dealing with intolerable opioid-induced adverse effects.

Recent advances in the use of opioids for cancer pain

Opioids are the mainstay of treatment for moderate to severe cancer pain. In recent years there have been many advances in the use of opioids for cancer pain. Availability and consumption of opioids have increased and opioids other than morphine (including methadone, fentanyl, oxycodone) have become more widely used. Inter-individual variation in response to opioids has been identified as a significant challenge in the management of cancer pain. Many studies have been published demonstrating the benefits of opioid switching as a clinical maneuver to improve tolerability. Constipation has been recognized as a significant burden in cancer patients on opioids. Peripherally restricted opioid antagonists have been developed for the prevention and management of opioid induced constipation. The phenomenon of breakthrough pain has been characterized and novel modes of opioid administration (transmucosal, intranasal, sublingual) have been explored to facilitate improved management of breakthrough cancer pain. Advances have also been made in the realm of molecular biology. Pharmacogenetic studies have explored associations between clinical response to opioids and genetic variation at a DNA level. To date these studies have been small but future research may facilitate prospective prediction of response to individual drugs.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of OROS(R) hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine for the control of chronic cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Long-acting opioid formulations are advocated for maintaining pain control in chronic cancer pain. OROS(R) hydromorphone is a sustained-release formulation of hydromorphone that requires dosing once daily to maintain therapeutic concentrations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine for chronic cancer pain.

METHODS

200 patients with cancer pain (requiring </= 540 mg/d of oral morphine) participated in this double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone or morphine (immediate-release for 2-9 days, sustained-release for 10-15 days). Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), investigator and patient global evaluations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The primary endpoint was the 'worst pain in the past 24 hours' item of the BPI, in both the immediate-release and sustained-release study phases, with treatments deemed equivalent if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the between-group differences at endpoint were between -1.5 and 1.5. No equivalence limits were defined for secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Least-squares mean differences (95% CI) between groups were 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9) in the immediate-release phase and -0.8 (-1.6, -0.01) in the sustained-release phase (intent-to-treat population), indicating that the immediate-release formulations met the pre-specified equivalence criteria, but that the lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) was outside the boundary (-1.5) for the sustained-release formulations. BPI 'pain now PM' was significantly lower with OROS(R) hydromorphone compared with controlled-release morphine (least-squares mean difference [95% CI], -0.77 [-1.49, -0.05]; p = 0.0372). Scores for other secondary efficacy variables were similar between the two sustained-release treatments. At endpoint, > 70% of investigators and patients rated both treatments as good to excellent. The safety profiles of hydromorphone and morphine were similar and typical of opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSION

Equivalence was demonstrated for immediate-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine, but not for the sustained-release formulations of OROS(R) hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine. The direction of the mean difference between the treatments (-0.8) and the out-of-range lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) were in favor of OROS(R) hydromorphone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0041054.

Delirium issues in palliative care settings

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to provide an expert review of delirium in the context of palliative care.

METHODS

Based on a primary selection criterion, firstly, studies were included for review if the population studied either had a diagnosis of advanced cancer or was receiving palliative care; alternatively, in the absence of data derived from these populations, studies conducted in other populations were included. Secondly, from the studies meeting the primary selection criterion, we selected those that examined specific standard outcome measures. Thirdly, we selected studies and literature reviews that identified delirium research issues.

RESULTS

Delirium occurs commonly in the context of palliative care where it is likely to cause heightened distress for patients, carers, and families alike, and make interpretation of pain and other symptoms extremely difficult. There is a profound dearth of rigorous studies on delirium in this setting. Ambiguous terminology, varying definitions in internationally recognized classification systems, and failure to use validated assessment tools lead to wide-ranging incidence and prevalence of delirium episodes in such populations. Episodes are usually multifactorial in origin and may portend poor prognosis by preceding death in many cases. Despite this, many are often at least partially reversible with relatively low-burden interventions. The patient's disease status, previous quality of life, and prior expressed wishes regarding goals of care should all be taken into account. Antipsychotics are the pharmacotherapeutic agents most commonly used to control symptoms despite limited evidence either supporting their efficacy or examining their adverse event profile. Often, symptomatic control alone is indicated. In cases with refractory symptoms, deeper or "palliative" sedation may be required.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed regarding delirium recognition, phenomenology, the development of low-burden instruments for assessment, family education, predictive models for reversibility, and evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate use of palliative sedation.

Delirium in cancer patients: a focus on treatment-induced psychopathology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Delirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that occurs frequently in cancer patients, especially in those with advanced disease. Recognition and effective management of delirium is particularly important in supportive and palliative care, especially in view of the projected increase in the elderly population and the consequent potential for the number of patients both diagnosed and living longer with cancer to increase substantively.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies of delirium in a variety of settings have generated new insights into phenomenology, assessment tools, the psychomotor subtypes, potential patho-physiological markers, pathogenesis, reversibility, and the role of sedation in symptom control.

SUMMARY

Validated tools exist to assist in the assessment of delirium. Although our understanding of the pathogenesis of delirium has improved somewhat, there remains a compelling need to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology, especially in relation to opioids and the other psychoactive medications that are used in supportive care. Further trials are needed, especially in patients with advanced disease to determine predictive models of reversibility, preventive strategies, outcomes, and to assess the role of antipsychotic and other medications in symptomatic management.

Tetrodotoxin for moderate to severe cancer pain: a randomized, double blind, parallel design multicenter study

Cancer pain is a serious public health issue and more effective treatments are needed. This study evaluates the analgesic activity of tetrodotoxin, a highly selective sodium channel blocker. This randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel design study of subcutaneous tetrodotoxin, in patients with moderate or severe unrelieved cancer pain persisting despite best available treatment, involved 22 centers across Canada. The design called for tetrodotoxin administered subcutaneously over Days 1-4 with a period of observation to Day 15 or longer. All patients could enroll into an open-label extension efficacy and safety trial. The primary endpoint was the proportion of analgesic responders in each treatment arm. Eighty-two patients were randomized, and results on 77 were available for analysis. There was a nonstatistically significant trend toward more responders in the active treatment arm based on the primary endpoint (pain intensity difference). However, analysis of secondary endpoints, and an exploratory post hoc analysis, suggested there may be a robust analgesic effect if a composite endpoint is used, including either fall in pain level, or fall in opioid dose, plus improvement in quality of life. Most patients described transient perioral tingling or other mild sensory phenomena within about an hour of each treatment. Nausea and other toxicities were generally mild, but one patient experienced a serious, adverse event, truncal and gait ataxia. This trial suggests tetrodotoxin may potentially relieve moderate to severe, treatment-resistant cancer pain in a large proportion of patients, and often for prolonged periods following treatment, but further study is warranted using a composite primary endpoint.

Mechanisms of Opioid-Induced Tolerance and Hyperalgesia

Opioid tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia are conditions that negatively affect pain management. Tolerance is defined as a state of adaptation in which exposure to a drug induces changes that result in a decrease of the drug's effects over time. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia occurs when prolonged administration of opioids results in a paradoxic increase in atypical pain that appears to be unrelated to the original nociceptive stimulus. Complex intracellular neural mechanisms, including opioid receptor desensitization and down-regulation, are believed to be major mechanisms underlying opioid tolerance. Pain facilitatory mechanisms in the central nervous system are known to contribute to opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Recent research indicates that there may be overlap in the two conditions. This article reviews known and hypothesized pathophysiologic mechanisms surrounding these phenomena and the clinical implications for pain management nurses.

Provision for advanced pain management techniques in adult palliative care: a national survey of anaesthetic pain specialists

INTRODUCTION

It is estimated that 8% of cancer patients could benefit from advanced pain management techniques; some 12,000 patients per year in the UK. In 2002, Linklater et al. surveyed palliative medicine consultants to assess their access and attitude to such techniques, finding under-utilization with a lack of formal arrangements for referral. We report a survey of pain specialist anaesthetists on the same topic.

METHOD

Postal questionnaire survey of lead anaesthetists in UK pain clinics.

RESULTS

106 responses were received from 170 questionnaires sent (62%). Referral rates from palliative medicine to pain clinics were low; only 31% of respondents received more than 12 per year. Joint consulting arrangements were rare, but were associated with more referrals. Only 25% of anaesthetists' job plans had time allocated for palliative medicine referrals, but where present this correlated positively with referrals received (P <0.002). Total interventions were estimated at less than 1000 per year.

DISCUSSION

There is evidence of under-referral of patients for advanced pain management procedures with a lack of integrated services.